Hi all, I'm still plugging away at "my little project," but I did enjoy observing the previous "bragging rights contest" for most Brooks sons in a given family. Alas, the list has gone quiet again ... Why not move on to the daughters of Brooks families? Who can claim the most? (Same rules apply with the exception of the gender change.) Why should only males be considered when descendants of either sex have the genes? I think you should, however, restrict yourself to the BROOKS surname, or pretty soon you'd be spinning off into cousin Mordecai's Veebelfester family of 26 children, with only the thinnest of Brooks connections topic-wise. (If my project continues to drag on, you could then progress to largest combined families, regardless of children's gender -- I have a documented report of a Brooks family with 21 children, though most aren't identified by name or date.) Regards, Chris